Talk:Lady Gaga/Archive 4

Entire Article

I'm not really sure if "undertones" is even a recognized issue on Wikipedia, but I noticed this entire article is written as if Lady Gaga has been a professional muscian for over six decades. Set aside that the earliest possible technical date for her career was four years ago. Consider the article as a whole. The theme of old dates and musicians is impressive. Groups like Queen, AC/DC, Guns N Roses and David Bowie are mentioned in nearly every paragraph of every section. Refering to "beginnings" and "of the time" creates an overall atmosphere that these events didn't just occur last year. Again, I don't even know if the romanticism swirling around this article could even be considered an issue. I just enjoyed seeing it. It seems to walk right around POV, and into creative manipulation through thematic structuring.Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you understand why there is mention about David Bowie and Queen? If not, I'll explain. It is because the artist cites them as her inspiration. Also, noted reviewers and critics have noticed the similarities and the influences of these performers on her work. Hence they are mentioned. Using the word "beginnnings" is always significant as to when somebody's career starts. Obviously the main thing about any musical artist should be their career , the reason of their notability and having an article in Wikipedia in the first place. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit it is a poorly-written article. What, for example, does this mean: "Gaga first signed with No Limit Records when she was nineteen years old; it happened after record executive L. A. Reid heard her singing down the hallway from his office. However, she claims Reid never met with her"? Does this mean her claim is believed to be a boldfaced lie? What is the source for the hallways story about Reid? (It is presented as an authoritative statement.) Why was she singing down the hallway from his office? I mean, was she by any chance recording something or auditioning for a deal? Or did she elbow her way into the lobby and just start bellowing? Then it goes on to say she was dropped 3 months later. Why introduce this fact and then write more about what was alleged about her signing than what was alleged about her dismissal? Parts sound like the breathless rant of a drug-addled teenage fan.

What, for example does this mean: "The album peaked in countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada..."? "Peaking" means nothing without noting what position it peaked at. Similarly, while I can appreciate the desire to present her claim of a heterosexual relationship, what is the point of quoting her that "I was his Sandy, and he was my Danny [of Grease], and I just broke." There is no context to interpret her meaning of the word "broke", and otherwise it's just nonsensical pop-culture name-dropping.

Reference 10 is broken, and when one does finally arrive at AllMusic, the reviews there don't support this confusing statement: "For the album, Gaga stated she combined a lot of different genres, 'from Def Leppard drums and handclaps to metal drums on urban tracks.'"[10] I'd suggest an interested editor give the article a thorough copyedit. Abrazame (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Been over a week at this well-trafficked page; anybody want to respond or edit these passages I've queried? Abrazame (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I will, gimme time for a day. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Gay

http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2009/08/14/lady_gaga_i_m_gay_my_music_is_gay_my_sho She came out of the closet, finally. 173.20.224.196 (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you've been, but she's been out since May 2009. That quote could be added to the section of the article where it discusses her plans to tour with Kanye, but with a better source (ie, the magazine). POKERdance ^talk/contribs 17:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I beleive this reference shold do the job. however, the info seems a little undue weightage in the biography article. It is better suited if an article about the upcoming tour is created. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia article Poker Face, the following text appears:- During her Fame Ball tour performance at Palm Springs, California on April 11, 2009, Gaga explained to the crowd the true meaning behind the term "Poker Face" used in the song. She suggested that the song dealt with her personal experience with bisexuality.

I'm not trying to steal gay thunder, but would suggest that she's using the word gay as it was originally intended, as an inclusive word for all of us who live outside the straight definition, much as nowadays one would more readily use the word queer.

Nuttyskin (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Awards

The awards section is getting too long and directory like. Better to move it to its separate List article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason in particular that songs are listed multiple times in the table? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Language

In the artical 'As a Gay icon' there is sme strong Language wich I think should be removed, or atleast toned down with stars. This might be offesive to some users, an ther may be young children reading this.--Naomii96 (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia is not censored. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "gay" is not considered offensive unless it is used against another in bad faith which is not the case in the article. • вяαdcяochat 08:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the "chicken dinner" reference is going to fly right over their heads. Seriously though, young children reading this are going to have a lot more to deal with than a four-letter word. Obviously GaGa's intersex hoax shows she's not terribly concerned with being a role model for the little ones. Erm, by which I mean kids. The internet isn't really a safe place for children; it's a bit like letting a child loose in Vegas. Ideally, their computer use should be offline, learning how to read and write. Abrazame (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I Wsn't talking about the word gay. Did you read the whole artical? Anyway it's gone now so it don't matter--Naomii96 (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this meet BLP??

Does this meet BLP? All these news sources http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/10922 http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977770072&grpId=3659174697244816 http://www.theinsider.com/news/2682393_Lady_GaGa_a_Hermaphrodite_Check_Out_the_Evidence http://www.eontarionow.com/entertainment/2009/08/11/lady-gaga-hermaphrodite-proof/ http://www.overthelimit.info/entertainment/2009/08/11/lady-gaga-hermaphrodite-proof/ http://www.examiner.com/x-7311-Cultural-Trends-Examiner~y2009m8d11-Celebrity-sexuality-101-Is-Lady-GaGa-a-hermaphrodite--video http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25908431-5012974,00.html http://newsroom.mtv.com/2009/08/07/is-lady-gaga-really-a-hermaphrodite-probably-not/ http://www.examiner.com/x-10507-LA-Dancing-Examiners~y2009m8d11-Haunting-hermaphrodite-rumors-Jame-Lee-Curtis-then-and-Lady-Gaga-now http://newsroom.mtv.com/2009/08/10/spotted-lady-gagas-new-hair-beyonce-and-solange-more/ http://www.rap-up.com/2009/08/08/lady-gaga-lets-her-hair-down/ http://24hourhiphop.com/article.php?id=5159 http://idolator.com/5263102/just-a-reminder-gaga-is-a-lady-not-a-man ???????? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above should help you see what are the basis of the consensus it is not relevant. Sources are still few and the meme is not robust; I am monitoring the situation and willing to reopen it in case it becomes a wider case. Thanks for the reference list anyway. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

When Lady GaGa adresses the situation out right. Include it. In one small line and cite it well. Seeings as the editor above posted a couple of realiable sources there they can be used to.Raintheone (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaga has denied the rumors here and here (skip to 1:00); she talks about her "hermie dick" and "donkey dick" in an obviously-joking manner. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 00:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would think it would be useful to examine precedent when deciding whether to include this controversy. So: does Michael Jackson's article mention oxygen chambers or the Elephant Man? Does Richard Gere's article mention gerbils? Does David Bowie's article mention his (probably untrue) assertion of bisexuality? Well, let's see. The answers are: Yes, No, and Yes. So, what's the difference between the three? Well, sourcing, I think. Jackson disseminated the fabricated story about the oxygen tank himself. Bowie lied about his sexuality himself. Gere doesn't seem to have played any part in spreading the story about the gerbil. So I guess probably the critical question re: "hermaphrodite" is: what part did Gaga herself play in making this rumor persist? Was this a publicity stunt? If so... it should probably go in. If not... probably not. 71.94.72.2 (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm thrilled to agree with the above anon on this issue—something those familiar with my statements on this matter might be surprised about. It's my judgement that if reliable and notable sources prove (not merely suggest) that this individual started this rumor about herself (something that's hard to imagine without the proof coming from Gaga herself), then that could be a reasonable thing to remark upon in her biography. Editors would have to read these hypothetical reports to make a responsible editorial judgement, but I imagine that I would support the inclusion of reliably and notably referenced news reports on such a revelation, if what I am hypothesizing were to happen. Until such time, no matter how many anons or single-issue users report arriving here and being disappointed they were unable to read about this in the bio (as if this talk page discussion wasn't outrageous overkill already), this is a non-issue for an encyclopedia biography. Abrazame (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that Jackson, Bowie and others had widespread coverage of these issues in numerous major publication and on top of that, gave not only singular statements, but entire interviews on the subject. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Red and Blue

There is no mention of Red and Blue, Gaga's first album consisting of five songs (Something Crazy, Wish You Were Here, No Floods, Words, and the title track) she released in 2005 as Stefani Germanotta. Shouldn't this be included or at least mentioned? Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 20:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

When this was last discussed, the decision was not to include it. See Talk:Lady Gaga/Archives 4#Red & Blue EP? However, if you have new reliable sources, we can revisit the issue. —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not see that old discussion. I wish I did have reliable sources, but info on Red and Blue is tragically hard to find. Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 21:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, when this was last discussed, there was no "decision," and the only person commenting concluded that Red and Blue "merits a mention" but should not be included the discography. 71.94.72.2 (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Parents

"Gaga was born on March 28, 1986 in Yonkers, New York as the eldest child to Italian American parents Joseph Germanotta, an Internet entrepreneur, and Cynthia, a telecommunications assistant."

An Internet entrepreneur...in 1986? I don't think so... _scootey^talk 04:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Text size

The text size randomly changes halfway through the article - can someone look fix the rogue tag causing it? 81.149.182.210 (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Kanye West Tour

Do we even need to have this discussion? The statement passes Wikipedia:CRYSTAL BALL as it is officially confirmed and will almost certainly take place. Why are we deleting it, exactly? Tikkuy (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:RECENTISM this is not 100% confirmed and is scheduled to changes and may be cancelling. Hence let some concrete proof of the tour being completely rolled out, come up, then it can surely go in. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but there's absolutely no reason for the tour being cancelled. I think we should leave it in there, and if it is for some reason cancelled, we can just take it out again. Tikkuy (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There in it fails WP:RECENTISM. The tour has just been announced. Let some detail emerge which will convince us that it is indeed happening. This is a similar situation that I have seen in The Fame article regarding The Fame: Monster edition. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was confirmed back in June, when Gaga was in Japan, so it's not really that recent at all. But whatever - apparently the dates are coming out this week for it, so I think then would be an acceptable time to add it. Tikkuy (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Added to article because of the recent confirmation of tour dates. (Rolling StoneDigital Spy) Dt¹²⁸ SpeakToMe 18:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Again, fails WP:RECENTISM. What does a bunch of dates imply? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hitmixes (Lady Gaga EP)

I redirected this new page to her main page. This is a Canada only release- a special market release of Universal Music Canada. Seeing as Gaga is a global artist from the US, this release is not notable, unless Interscope releases it in the US or pushes it through other UMG national companies or if we see significant Canadian charting. Redirect for now. Imperatore (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

SALES

The Fame has now sold 4 million copies worldwide http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Lady-Gaga-Returns-With-8-New-prnews-3764233688.html?x=0

The article mentions and sources that she has written songs for several other artists, however I can't seem to find out which songs these were. I'm sure these songs are elsewhere on wp so it seems like it would be nice if we could name them and link this up, if anyone can find out the answers. 72.186.209.166 (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hermaphroditism rumours

I added the following paragraph:

Several gossip websites have claimed, on the basis of photographs and video footage, that Gaga is actually an hermaphrodite, having both male and female genitalia. A purportedly positive declaration of GaGa herself on the subject has been circulating. However it seems that such claims are actually unsubstantiated . Her manager dismissed the rumours as "ridicolous" ."

It has however been deleted twice, citing the WP:HARM policy. I disagree WP:HARM is relevant in this case, since: - The information is already public - The paragraph is about a (debunked) rumour, not the rumour content itself. - The information is IMHO relevant: it is a notable information covered by news sites, that is likely to be caught by people following the person herein biographed. Sexuality status of a pop-star is of public interest usually. - The paragraph actually avoids harm because it states that the rumour has been debunked.

Having no intention of starting a revert war, I would like however to discuss how to deal with it. Any suggestion/comment? Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be added to the article but only when it has been confirmed. Portillo (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It will NEVER be confirmed: it is an hoax. It will be included if and when substantially relevant. My personal opinion is that could be already relevant enough to be inserted, but there are solid grounds for disagreeing, therefore I wait. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As it seems 99% certain to be false, I agree that it should not be included here, but as it seems likely to become a hardy, perennial, well-circulated meme, I think Lady Gaga's Penis may deserve its own article. Bustter (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The creation of that article would be a good, quick way for Wikipedia to get slapped with a lawsuit from Gaga's management. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 11:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I didnt mean to sound like it will be confirmed eventually. I meant to say if it ever did become confirmed. Portillo (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly true or not, Wikipedia does not publish rumors. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 01:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to Bustter, as I have stated elsewhere in this discussion, it is not an encyclopedia editor's job to anticipate perennial memes. The very definition of "perennial" is something that perpetuates itself year after year after year after year indefinitely, rather than something that exists for a year or a few years but then dies down. For us to discuss this formally in any manner would be to be a part of the story, and a part of creating said meme, and as such we would be the dupes of, and complicit with, whomever began what most here acknowledge to be a hoax. In other words, it is also not an encyclopedia editor's job to participate in creating perennial memes. En-cy-clo-pe-di-a. Please read the whole discussion as it continues below before responding to anything in this section. Abrazame (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rumours are never acceptable in article writing. Especially ones of this sort which most likely violate WP:HARM. It has no place on the article. • вяαdcяochat 05:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to Bradcro and Bathory: we're not talking of publishing rumours as they were facts or of giving undue importance to day-to-day gossips. We're discussing the possibility of mentioning the existence of a peculiar, possibly relevant rumour which is propagated elsewhere. WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:HARM have absolutely no relevance in this context. The question here is: is this meme relevant enough to be included in this article or not? --Cyclopia (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see all this fuss. One line such as 'Lady GaGa became the target of a rumour that she is a Hermaphrodite after a photo taken at Glastonbury. Many news sources picked the story up although GaGa denied these claims.' Something along those lines or less trivial. It was a rumour but when ABC and certain other pick on it, it's media attention. Then she hits back. Other wise it looks like die hard fans protecting her honour on this encyclopedia using all of it's underlying policies.. I thought pages resembling fan sites had no place. Sometimes critism and neggetive press happens to certain celebrities. Raintheone (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not acceptable and will never be untill and unless a first party verification comes. No place in an encyclopedic article especially on a high esteemed encyclopedia like Wikipedia. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What does "first party verification" means? And yes, if and when it will be notable enough, it should have a place in an highly esteemed encyclopedia -encyclopedias should not ignore the existence of enough widely known memes. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Random section break1

Raintheone has a point: at some point, we may have to mention the rumour and its debunking to maintain neutral point-of-view and not give the appearance of bias by not mentioning. However, I think the tipping point will come not with first-hand confirmation but with the depth and breadth of third-party coverage. Right now it's all short blurbs and potshots taken by DJs. If CNN or Discovery Health were to do a 10-minute story on her, then that would put it past the tipping point. As I said, we haven't hit that tipping point, and it may be some time before we see that the story has lived on long enough and gotten enough coverage that it does need included. For now, I don't think it's hit that point. —C.Fred (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One bias would be to state that she is a hermaphriodite and the other would be to say that she isn't. I think that having a neutral point-of-view on the subject would be to not include this at all untill it is fully confirmed with correct first party sources stating so. • вяαdcяochat 21:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Balance is not always in the middle. In this case, to say that NPOV is violated by saying that she probably isn't is a stretch -the "intersex theory" is still very much a fringe theory. But we don't have to say something about that: we can just report the rumour, if and when needed, without taking any side. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say Cyclopia, you do have a point there. I am still however, afraid that there is limited notable coverage with depth to report on such an issue. Just as C.Fred said, we haven't hit the tipping point yet. • вяαdcяochat 04:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just end this discussion once and for all? This will not be included in Wikipedia, this will never be included in Wikipedia. Tabloid fluff, especially with libelous rumors, can never be used as reliable sources for anything. Point blank. Gaga and her manager have denied the rumors. To make an article or section about her being a hermaphrodite when the lie has already been dismissed is inappropriate, wrong, immoral, and also very much illegal. She doesn't have a penis. Now drop it. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 11:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Pokerdance, you (like me and any other user here) are absolutely not entitled to ask if and where to stop a civil talk page discussion. Second, you are completely missing the point of the discussion. No one is going to write that Lady Gaga is an intersex. What could be written is that a rumour about that has circulated, which has been dismissed etc. That the rumour exists is a fact. And therefore there is nothing wrong, immoral, let alone illegal, in simply reporting that several websites and news sources have reported a curious hoax (and on which Lady Gaga herself jokes about on her twitter account). The only problem is notability of this incident -which seems to be, by consensus, still a bit below the bar. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Cyclopia. This user unfairly attempted to reprimand me on my own talk page for raising the issue [which obviously is still being debated, on a TALK PAGE. This user has stated that Lady Gaga is their personal favourite singer, so obviously there is a great deal of bias against something that they themselves consider to be negative, which in and of itself is simply opinion. Hrhadam (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in regard to Pokerdance; even if I disagreed with him I am sure he's working to improve the article like me or you. The fact he likes an artist doesn't mean necessarily to be biased (if it happens for him to be biased, it can be a hint, but that's another matter). Anyway, the problem with talk pages is one of an ambiguity of the BLP policy. I started a discussion on the BLP policy talk page about that, maybe it can be of interest. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is notable on the fact that it has been well published by numerous media outlets. A neutral passage on the matter should be included. 220.233.41.31 (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The one valuable aspect in having this conversation is to point out to a segment of the public that not all "media outlets" are equal, and not all "publishing" is notable—and why an encyclopedia has a different usership, and a different mission, and so must have a different set of standards for including what's been "published" in the "media" than a "media outlet". Yet it shouldn't have to take such excessively repeated effort to make the point. At some point, we need to recognize that some people arriving here simply don't want this difference, and would like to blur the lines between all media. They're entitled to want that, but serious Wikipedia editors are bound to maintain the distinction. All people are created equal. All "news" is not. Abrazame (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article is, at first approximation, a collection of notable notions about a notable subject. The problem is the notability of notions themselves, regardless of their origin. Take Chocolate Rain for example: it hardly has "official" sources, but the notability of the subject is by large established. We should not distinguish by things that become notable because circulate in trashy tabloids or because circulate in academic journals. Another thing is the kind of standards that we have to keep when covering stuff, but this is unrelated to the origin of the stuff. --Cyclopia (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Cyclopia regarding the notability of this incident. I believe in this case, the notability is still below the belt. These kind of rumours about Gaga have been spreading for quite a while. I believe first was that she's a transexual, now its the hermaphro rumour. Being in a public life and having a somewhat unusual image, these kind of rumours and gossips will circulate. Even if highly esteemed sources talk about this rumour, allowing it in an encyclopedic article will be like attracting a place to post gossips. Even a single line will entitle another one to add about the tranny rumour, or someone about the gaga killed lermit the frogs rumor. There's no ending of it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

random section break2

Katy Perry hits out publically Here and now GaGa is being accused of doing it on purpose. Notable yet, after everyones gathered sources? Celebrity row. ABC report it, many others. GaGa's adressed it. Well?Raintheone (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, in no way was i saying that her being a hermaphrodite is notable, i was saying the wide spread rumor that she is, is notable in that it has become so well known whether believed or not. It wouldn't be publishing of gossip and wouldn't lead to further gossip. However, if the legendary tale of her killing Kermit the Frog was to be as wide spread and noted, I would suggest the presence of the rumor would be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.41.31 (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

From a completely objective POV, not being a Wikipedia editor or frequent user - just someone looking for information, I think the GaGa rumour should absolutely be included in the article. The rumour is out there in the public domain, Lady GaGa is a high profile artist and a lot of people know about the rumour and probably have an opinion on it one way or another. The nature of the article is to include relevant information of GaGa's career and personal life, of which this rumour is undeniably a part. Not including the rumour in the article would be denying that the rumour even exists which is undeniably biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.80.32 (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As of right now, Google News has 462 hits for the entry "lady gaga hemaphrodite". Google News also has 559 hits for "lady gaga penis". Lady Gaga has mentioned the speculation on her Twitter account. ABC news has covered the news. Dozens of celebrity watcher blogs have discussed the matter. Youtube videos depicting the video that generated the speculation abound. Katy Perry, another celebrity singer, has even commented on the matter, accusing Lady Gaga of attempting to start the rumors herself by wearing something beneath her clothing that would intentionally lead to speculation of her being intersexed (which has been covered by MTV). Suggestions that this rumor is not notable, or has not impacted Lady Gaga's personal life, are not to be taken seriously. Whether the story qualifies as relevant to the article is another question. Whether the story fails to qualify because it is sheer gossip is still yet another question. But notable it undeniably is. I came to this article after hearing of this rumor and googling around to see if it's been confirmed or disconfirmed. I was surprised that there was no mention of it one way or the other in the main entry. That just seems odd, considering that the speculation (albeit, disconfirmed) pervades celebrity gossip sites. I'm uncertain why a Wikipedia entry is expected to have less information than readers expect to find when they access the entry. GlockGuy (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GlockGuy. By the reasoning that rumours shouldn't be posted, neither should the Roswell Incident, right? Or any number of conspiracy theories. But they are, because though false, they are notable. That is the only criteria for being included, and notable it is. We aren't saying she is or isn't a hermaphrodite, simply that there are countless, notable rumours of it. Which is 100% true and notable. 86.136.138.119 (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Roswell incident blurb: "The Roswell UFO Incident involves the recovery of materials near Roswell, New Mexico, USA, on July 8, 1947, which since the late 1970s has become the subject of intense speculation, rumor, and questioning. There are widely divergent views on what actually happened and passionate debate about what evidence can be believed. Etc." Roswell is ALL ABOUT rumours. Could be pretty much exactly: "The Lady Gaga rumours involve several videos and photos of her genital area, which since her rise to fame have become the subject of intense speculation, rumor, and questioning. There are widely divergent views on what sex she is and passionate debate about what evidence can be believed. Etc." So why can't we have rumours in this article? It's not harm if we don't take sides, don't say what's right and wrong and simply post the rumours stating they are rumours. 86.136.138.119 (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference is the Roswell incident has been the subject of WP:WELLKNOWN speculation for decades. WP:HARM states: If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article. If the information has only appeared in a few tabloid sources, local newspapers, or websites of dubious quality, or has only been the subject of fleeting and temporary coverage, then it is not appropriate to include it. The latter of which clearly applies to Lady Gaga. Three reliable sources amidst widespread unreliable blogs is hardly "numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time." The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The latter sentence is nonsense. Every subject will probably show up a few reliable sources and a lot of blog/other formally unreliable coverage. Since when the ratio between the two is taken into account? --Cyclopia (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, we now have the [Los Angeles Times] commenting on the full story, too. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, WP:UNDUE, which states not to hold a minority view as a majority. If there is limited reliable coverage to a subject, that has to be taken into consideration. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is thinking of giving undue weight to the rumour, only to acknowledge (in a sentence or two) it exists and and it has been notable enough. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I searched for Lady Gaga's wikipedia page to find out about the rumour and whether or not it was a hoax or true. It would have been nice if the wiki page told me either way. Wiki has an opportunity to help debunk the rumours and so I dont think the original phrase in question was doing any harm. In fact it was probably capable of doing more good. 203.30.34.58 (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I also came to Wikipedia first seeking info on this... Should be a collaborative effort to incorporate it into the main article. all sources included of course —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.29.107 (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I came here for the same reason as 203.30.34.58 and 118.208.29.107, simply to find out if this rumour actually had proper evidence behind it, or if it was just yet another story blown up to massive proportions by blogs and ED. I agree fully with the two users above me, an article should be created for the sole reason of saying "There is this rumour, and as far as we can tell, there's no truth behind it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.122.248 (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The questions of Lady Gaga's biological sexuality is valid and should be referenced in her page. If a Jamaican athlete can have her sexuality questioned by main stream media (news), then I think a reference here is valid. Perhaps links to Intersex - Klinefelter's_syndrome - Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome would be valid. A public figure, choosing to flaunt their sexuality can not complain about reasonable comments, especially in the light of the Glastonbury 2009 appearance. ;—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.201.112 (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I also came to the page looking for information about the rumor. I think a brief sentence should be added to the article. Chrysanthememe (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It definitely deserves a mention in the article, it has been reported in different countries, sparked celebrity rows and is one of the top Google searches. (Type "Is" into Google, and the first thing to come up is "Is lady gaga a man"). I came on Wikipedia to find out if she is or not because everything on here is sourced, but the article doesn't even mention it. 86.158.129.136 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely so. I came here looking for sourced info -- and found the talk page. No mention of it on the article. Needs to say something -- e.g. "and has been dened by Gaga [1]" --67.236.81.130 (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, to the anon who remarked "Type 'Is' into Google, and the first thing to come up is 'Is lady gaga a man'", that's because you typed that phrase into your own Google search window prior to that. Hello? Clear your cache and I'm guessing you'll find what I do after clearing my own, which is "Is bronchitis contagious". The reason I point this out here is that you are all generating your own publicity and your own Google-hit "proof" at this point, and that is precisely why no amount of argument at this page will result in putting this sort of rumor into the article. Abrazame (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

random section break3

Can't this rumor be added now since lady gaga has spoken on the issue? stating " my little vagina is offended" add this. Don't be biased. Wiki should give all sides, info etc on subjects. Just because some people here like her music or whatever doesnt mean you should publish FACTS. and the FACT is, this is a real issue, on REAL news networks, getting REAL press and being talked about and discussed BY lady gaga and her agent. Add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.31.118 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Aah, I see what you mean. After digging through a few blogs, I notice that she brought up this issue in an interview with Australian radio station Nova 106.9. MTV News published an article summarizing the interview on Sept. 8. I agree with the above poster and feel that now that Gaga has personally spoken about the rumors, it will not be a BLP violation to include a brief mention of the unsubstantiated allegations of hermaphroditism . Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion that if someone personally denies a rumor, that makes the rumor notable enough to address in their encyclopedia biography is both missing the point about why encyclopedias don't elevate rumor to the level of encyclopedic biographical detail and it is presenting the subject of a rumor—and editors—with a catch-22, which is unacceptable.

Think about it: if she doesn't respond, then people say, "why doesn't she just tell everybody it's untrue?"; some decide to answer for themselves: "she's humiliated", "she has something to hide", "she's purposely letting the rumor build up steam for some publicity-hungry reason", and even "it stemmed from a stunt in which she was a witting participant". So we blame the victim of the rumor. Yet, if she does issue a denial, through a representative or by speaking to the issue herself, you argue that this causes the rumor to spring into notability to her biography? So we reward the person(s) who started the rumor by doing precisely what they wanted, to biographically associate their lie with this notable person.

No. That's not the way this works. So a blog reports that in a radio interview she has asserted that this is a false rumor, and made a joke about taking offense; this denial is noted in an MTV.com article. This makes the rumor less notable to her biography, not more so.

Incidentally, for what it's worth, and lest editors pushing for inclusion here spread further misinformation, according to the article she didn't suggest her vagina was "little", she called the rumor little, and silly; she described her vagina as "beautiful." But we're not going to add that to the bio either, regardless of however many un-notable people might remark upon the veracity of any of that.

For the last time here, hopefully, both as an editorial encyclopedia issue and as a philosophical issue, this has nothing whatsoever to do with intersex people or with Lady Gaga. (For the record, I am not a fan.) This has to do with the originators and purveyors of rumor, and the distinction between them and editorially responsible encyclopedias, indeed the difference between purveyors of rumor and the notable person themselves in terms of what and whose intentions, choices, actions and words make up not only reality but the story of a life and what about it would be biographically notable. It is not about news coverage or statements made. It is not about satisfying those who have heard the rumor and want to know about it. (Surely some have arrived at her bio here and mirror sites around the web these past few weeks without having previously heard this rumor, and hopefully went away without looking at this talk page; this is where complicity in spreading rumor comes in; that is only one, though an important one, of the reasons an encyclopedia does not publish rumor.)

Incidentally, the word "allegation" was used; this was not an allegation. That elevates it to the level of something reasonable to debate or investigate. Allegation implies the coloration of an aggrieved party speaking out against a presumed wrongdoer about some momentous issue, such as impropriety or illegality. This was merely a base rumor, itself the impropriety. The antagonist would not be Germanotta, for hypothetically concealing an intersex status. Frankly, the worst antagonist would not even be the people who generated the rumor, as they're obviously incapable of appreciating the bigger picture here and don't have a broad, notable forum with which to spread the rumor. The worst antagonist would be the supposedly reasonable and rational editor legitimizing such anonymous immaturity by addressing it in an encyclopedic biography, and that encyclopedia. And if Germanotta, Gaga, were to have knowingly caused the rumor as the result of some stunt (that is an allegation—that she was wearing a strap-on, as I understand it?), again the worse fault would be the legitimate encyclopedic source made a mockery of by getting hooked into being complicit in broadcasting such a trashy, calculated publicity stunt. If Gaga were to be proven a hoaxter in this matter, that would require a certain editorial discussion and handling of the story, as referenced by notable, reliable sources, if it were deemed appropriate for the article. If Gaga were to be proven an intersex person, that would require a completely different editorial discussion and handling, perhaps even more notably and reliably referenced, if it were deemed appropriate for the article. Either case would be an extraordinary situation that would require an extraordinary degree of proof. The ordinary circumstance regarding rumor is that no extraordinary proof does emerge because the rumor is unfounded and there is no proof—or if true that the secret is well-guarded and/or the right to privacy is respected.

If the rumor or this denial is further picked up by the media; if other cads compel her to respond another few times and that is kicked along by the media; if someone publishing a book-length biography devotes a whole couple of pages to this rumor; if a notable person publishes a sociological article all or in part based on this, for example from the sexist or misogynist angle, we still wouldn't include a mention in this small bio, as a rumor some anonymous person starts about a public figure is not appropriate for a brief biography of someone notable for plenty of other achievements and experiences, brief career notwithstanding. Rumor dismissed. Dismissal found in minor mentions elsewhere. Nothing more to see here. This really ought to be the end of this discussion. Abrazame (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, the existence of this rumor is absolutely notable. I came here looking for information about it. No mention on the article--only on the talk page, by reading the discussion above, did I learn that Lady Gaga has even joked around about it. Time and time again on Wikipedia, the most useful and relevant information is buried on the talk pages. Why do you people resist making the articles informative? Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.4.133 (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Cyclopia is right. You don't have to pass judgment on the veracity of the rumor to note its widespread existence--hell, widespread enough for me to have heard about it, even. Given that, it's a weird omission from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.4.133 (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly this rumor is neither the most useful nor the most relevant aspect of Lady Gaga's biography, hence its exclusion under various BLP guidelines mentioned all over the page. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 15:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the section that is about the "H" claim, itself, NOT an agreement with its alleged veracity. So - I HAVE read this above discussion, but the FACT is that these rumors have reached the mainstream media and THIS is an undeniable fact. As recently as only a few days ago - that ABC News article mentioned above. I am a fan of hers, but this is now a story with a life of its own and a mention of the "story" does NOT amount to agreement by any editor that the hermaphrodyte claim is factual.SimonATL (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not whether or not the information is factual: everyone knows its not. The issue is where or not it is notable enough to become an aspect of her biography. Janet Jackson was rumored to have given birth to a child by her first husband and sent the child away to live with someone else, but that rumor was so minuscule that is not a well known fact about her biography. Gaga and Jackson's example are different from lets say Michael Jackson who's rumors about the elephant man actually became an aspect of pop culture. If the information has only appeared in a few tabloid sources, local newspapers, or websites of dubious quality, or has only been the subject of fleeting and temporary coverage, then it is not appropriate to include it.The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am writing this not wearing my Wikipedia editor hat but my editor-of-a-nationally-distributed-weekly hat, and this rumor is absolutely notable. I sometimes rely on Wikipedia to if not verify facts, then at least point me toward proper primary sources. My magazine is running a story that mentions Lady Gaga, and it will be mentioning the rumor. This is now a significant portion of Lady Gaga's public persona, for better or worse. None of the staff here could name two Lady Gaga songs, but they could all remember hearing something about her "man parts." It may be the product clever marketing, it may be the product of a fleeting whisper campaign or it may be the product of a stupid online prank. This doesn't matter. One way or another, this rumor is part of Lady Gaga's public persona. Compare the article on Michael_Jackson's health and appearance, which includes - in its introduction - speculation from surgeons. The fact that they speculate is verifiable; the subject matter on which they speculate is not - but is still notable. It is still something about which researchers need to know. --grant (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed there is nothing in the article about this, once multiple mainstream national media has picked this story up there is NO doubt about the fact it is notable! (and verifiable) Why are we even debating this? Mathmo ^Talk 02:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not wasting time reading through all the gibberish above, but will point to Richard Gere. A few sad souls tried incessantly to get the gerbil rumor added into the page. That rumor has many, many more third-party mentions than the Lady GaGa crap, and it was decided that the rumor was not to be added to the page. Wikipedia doesn't spread rumors, and Wikipedia has no obligation to report the rumor, and debunk it, to maintain NPOV, as foolishly mentioned above. WP:BLP still trumps pretty much everything here on Wikipedia, so any hermaphrodite rumors stay out, until they are confirmed by reliable sources. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM, if you do not like to "waste your time" reading the "gibberish" above, please also do not waste your time intervening with comments which only show you have not read well what WP:BLP says, especially WP:WELLKNOWN. Thanks. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that you're upset, and probably a bit embarrassed, by the manner in which you were smacked down above. Please let me know when you get that primary source confirming Lada GaGa as a herm. I'll wait here. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(interject) No one is arguing she is intersexed - that's irrelevant. The argument is whether or not the rumor in notable. A number of editors are pro/against, myself being against. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 14:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:HARM

Information about a notable living individual can be divided broadly into two categories: public and nonpublic information. Generally speaking, nonpublic information consists of private details about an individual that have not been published in the mainstream media and are not widely known. In most cases, Wikipedia articles should not include such information; Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we are not in the business of "outing" people or publishing revelations about their private lives, whether such information is verifiable or not. As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and since Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity.

In some cases, there is some question as to whether a particular piece of information is public or nonpublic, e.g. where it has been published in reliable sources, but it is doubtful whether it belongs in an article. In such cases, the potential harm to the subject should be taken into account; an inclusion test can be applied in these instances.

• Point one Neither bossip.com nor celebritysmackblog.com are considered WP:RELIABLE SOURCES by any stretch of the imagination as Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

• Point Two: Per WP:HARM, Is the information already widely known? If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article. If the information has only appeared in a few tabloid sources, local newspapers, or websites of dubious quality, or has only been the subject of fleeting and temporary coverage, then it is not appropriate to include it. We have already established the original rumor was reported by unreliable sources. Secondly, a single rebuke by ABC News is not "numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time" and therefore is not appropriate to include it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand what you mean, and I see that there is a misunderstanding. I am not actually stating that "Lady GaGa is hermaphrodite, as reported by...". I was describing that there is a rumour: and unsubstantiated rumours do not necessarily run among reliable sources (arguably, reliable sources are not good sources to find evidence of such rumours going on! otherwise these sources wouldn't be reliable). There is no exceptional claim, since the existence of an odd rumour on a vaguely androgynous singer is hardly "exceptional" (her actual hermaphroditism would be, but that's not at all the point).

As for the point two, I understand that the existence and importance of the rumour needs maybe more sources. However, the very fact that her manager felt the need to dismiss them, means that such rumours were widespread enough to deserve an official rebuttal. The incident looks therefore curious and notable enough, in my opinion. I will try to gather more sources and to reword it in a clearer manner, so to avoid misunderstandings. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you still misunderstand my point. I am fully aware that you are not stating that "Lady GaGa is hermaphrodite, as reported by...". The point is that the rumor itself, regardless of validity, truth, or disproven tabloid trash, in not notable enough to be included in this biography, at all. I believe WP:BLP, WP:REDFLAG, WP:HARM and if nothing else WP:UNDUE prove that. I protest the inclusion of this information under any circumstance, barring widespread media coverage of this rumor, on par with the same level of coverage as her recording career itself. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

On the widespread coverage: Google News reports several hits for "lady gaga hermaphrodite". Not billions, but not so few. Among the hits there are sites like MTV.com, whose coverage seems to imply that the rumour is at least widespread enough to be deemed notable of news releases. The fact that her manager also felt obliged to dismiss officially the urban legend implies that they are widespread enough to cause them concern. If it was just a fringe prank, none of the above would have happened.

Your criteria "on par with the same level of coverage as her recording career itself" cannot be accepted: on this level, there are tons of informations that you should delete from the article (e.g. "Towards the end of 2008, comparisons were made between the fashion sense of Gaga and American recording artist Christina Aguilera, noting similarities in their styling, hair, and make-up.[5] [...] "). If such an information is deemed worth of inclusion, I don't see why the existence of a reasonably widespread urban legend about her is not.

Finally, I don't see how WP:REDFLAG and WP:HARM can be applied to the case. WP:REDFLAG applies to proposals of fringe theories, not to statements that merely acknowledge and document their existence. WP:HARM again is of no interest because reporting the urban legend in full context making it fully clear that it is just a legend can only help her reputation, not harm. WP:UNDUE could make more sense, but the existence of media coverage and official rebuttals make the fringe theory somehow officially recognized as worth some attention. I think we're in a case much closer to this one. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Google News hits for "lady gaga hermaphrodite" gets a total of 31 hits. By comparison, Lady Gaga Christina Aguilera gets about 6 million. Gaga has also drawn frequent comparison to Christina in the critical reviews in her albums and tours. The rumor issue literal dwarfs in comparison. Hence WP:UNDUE. In addition, WP:REDFLAG states:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.

WP:REDFLAG also states If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. WP:BLP states: Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In the first paragraph you compare apples to pears: to be precise, Google News search with plain Google search. Plain Google search for "lady gaga hermaphrodite" returns 91000 results. Surely much less but hardly unnoticeable -especially given that the combination of words is pretty unique, while possibly a lot of unrelated sites list Christina Aguilera and Lady Gaga, as both are pop singers (think of lyrics-dumping sites listings).

About WP:REDFLAG, again, my impression is that you're misunderstanding the meaning of that policy. I must insist in stating that I don't want at all to convey the impression that Lady Gaga could be an hermaphrodite. The "claim" here is the existence of an urban legend on her, claim which is acknowledged by mainstream sources (MTV.com , and ABC news reporting her manager's comments on that, now what's more official than Lady Gaga manager itself?) and that is not at all embarrassing or controversial (I hope that the existence of the rumour is not controversial, isn't it?). The rumour itself makes surprising or important claims etc., but it's an entirely different plane of meaning.

Finally, about privacy, sensationalism, titillating claims and subject privacy: I absolutely agree. There is nothing in the subject privacy to be violated in this case: her own manager officially discussed the thing, websites discussed the thing, the rumour is pretty much debunked and the Wikipedia page would report that, helping her reputation and privacy. The rumour itself is IMHO worth reporting because it is an odd occurrence on the public image of a pop icon, and it is somewhat significant as an unwanted cultural byproduct of the "androgynous" image of the singer herself. There's nothing sensational or titillating on the existence of a rumour, even if the rumour itself can be. But again, let's keep the layers distinct. --Cyclopia (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you really want results, do a Google search for "lady gaga penis," not in quotes. Hermaphrodite is a bit of a dated word anyhow (and one that some find offensive; see intersexed). If it does wind up being fact that Lady Gaga is intersexed (and, quite frankly, that's what I came to this article to find out), it DEFINITELY makes her remarkable, given how successful she has been and become; intersexed people face absolutely mind-bending amounts of discrimination and oppression, and to have overcome that even by staying "in the closet" so to speak is an amazing accomplishment and not something that should be carefully edited out of our description of her life. Roman à clef (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you do the same search for Christina Aguilera, you have about half of the results. Thanks anyway for coming up with the wording -I didn't suspect "hermaphrodite" was dated or possibly offensive. I feel the real pulse of the situation is by using Google News. In this case, "lady gaga penis" shows 719 results, versus 5 for Christina Aguilera. MTV Australia and Daily Mirror report the rumour. It seems that the rumour is not as fleeting as it seemed: time to reopen the case? --Cyclopia (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say at least half though sources are unreliable sources, which in effect still makes the number of reliable sources reporting it limited and fleeting. So, no. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You two are completely missing the point. Roman à clef plainly states that he "came to this article to find out" if Lady GaGa is intersex. THAT is the point. We don't have any knowledge that this person is intersex. So someone arriving here in order to find out whether GaGa is or is not should not find a mention. This will make the point that the rumor is simply a rumor and that there is no citable, verifiable proof that this is true. We don't need to state that. It's a given. We don't address this rumor not because we're not up on the latest rumors or behind the curve on the crass rumor du jour, we don't address it because it is an unnotable rumor that has no apparent basis in fact.

As to whether it's time to "reopen the case", at Wikipedia we're not detectives. We're not investigative reporters. We're encyclopedia editors. Notable people determine what is notable, and then we present it if it passes the thresholds of notability, weight, and other general and BLP issues. When we talk of fleeting rumor, we don't mean it was only a rumor for a week, we mean something has to be pervasive for years and have a real effect upon the person's notability. If, for example, GaGa's next album is a flop, and notable reviewers or journalists, say in Rolling Stone, allege that this is because people believed a rumor that GaGa is intersex and were turned off, that is arguably an example of how a rumor intersects with a biography at a notable level above the threshold of relevancy, reliable source, weight, etc. Another example of something we could note is if GaGa releases a song which she discusses in an interview as being about this particular rumor. These are two examples of this rumor rising up to the point of having an effect on GaGa's notability. Somebody pushing this rumor by posting additional non-notable sources or by declaring their desire to see a definitive statement on GaGa's gender is not going to change the facts of that gender or the facts of how an encyclopedia handles rumor. As to Google hits, each time some lout posts another message here or somewhere else about this story it becomes another hit, yet that doesn't make it any more notable, sizable or enduring of a rumor. When we talk about fleeting, we're not talking about weeks, or even months, we're talking about years or even decades. Even then, it has to be reported in a reliable source that it is notably affecting the actual person's notability, and not simply about the person. I can think of several rumors I've heard repeated since the '80s and still mentioned today; these rumors are not mentioned in those performers' bios. As to whether any of these non-notable rumors is actually true, and whether keeping it secret vs. "coming out" is redemptive or societally helpful or harmful has nothing to do with what we put in this article, or what is relevant discussion for a Wikipedia encyclopedia talk page. If a rumor were to notably and reliably be proven true, it would be no shame on Wikipedia that we didn't get out ahead of the curve and "break" the story. Encyclopedias, by their very nature, are inherently behind the curve, as the threshold for inclusion is (at least) notable certification in other reliable sources. Abrazame (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So someone arriving here in order to find out whether GaGa is or is not should not find a mention. This will make the point that the rumor is simply a rumor and that there is no citable, verifiable proof that this is true. We don't need to state that. It's a given. - No. It is not a given at all if you don't know what is the source of the rumour (if any), what sources debunk it, what has been the media reaction etc. - It's like saying that, since it is "a given" that we went on the Moon, we shouldn't mention the existence of Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories (which for sure are much more notable, I agree).

As to whether it's time to "reopen the case", at Wikipedia we're not detectives. We're not investigative reporters. - My wording was misunderstood, I meant "case" in the meaning of "argument for". My fault probably (English is not my first language).

These are two examples of this rumor rising up to the point of having an effect on GaGa's notability. - This makes sense, but when you say ach time some lout posts another message here or somewhere else about this story it becomes another hit, yet that doesn't make it any more notable, sizable or enduring of a rumor. I disagree. It makes more notable: it means it is a more and more known meme that people are aware of. We can discuss on where is the threshold, but notability is made, ultimately, also of the number of persons aware of something -be it a person, an hoax or whatever.

When we talk about fleeting, we're not talking about weeks, or even months, we're talking about years or even decades. - Huh? Is there a policy deciding that? --Cyclopia (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Random section break 1

I also sketch here a possibly less controversial rewording of the information, in the context of Lady Gaga's bisexual image as it is in the current article version:

... a crowd at one of her concerts that her song "Poker Face" deals with fantasizing about a woman while being in bed with a man.[37] As a possible side-effect of the bisexual and somewhat androgynous public image of Gaga, a probable Internet hoax claiming Gaga being actually hermaphrodite briefly circulated among several gossip websites, allegedly on the basis of images from a concert video footage and a fabricated blog post. Lady Gaga's manager officially dismissed the rumour as "ridicolous".

Are you sure that "ridicolous is spelled right? Maybe you can change it to "ridiculous."

Surely not perfect, but maybe more clear and acceptable? it states clearly that it is (most likely) an hoax, and it is put in a cultural context. --Cyclopia (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Its been clear from the get-go you believe I'm misinterpreting policy, there is no need to repeat yourself. Regardless, as far as I am concerned, the threshold for inclusion is not the Verifiability of the subject: neither the rumor, its truth or its falsehood, or the rebuttal by her manager. As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and since Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity. I disagree wholeheartedly that mentioning the rumor and the dismissal helps her reputation or privacy, nor do I see it as anything significant. "Odd occurrences on the public image of a pop icon" occur on a regular basis. That doesn't make ever incident critical to understanding the subject from an encyclopedic point of view. Stating "As a possible side-effect of the bisexual and somewhat androgynous public image of Gaga" is not acceptable per WP:SYNTHESIS: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

Its been clear from the get-go you believe I'm misinterpreting policy, there is no need to repeat yourself. - I am sorry. But I was not able to explain your references to such policies in any other way; any clarification is welcome.

"I disagree wholeheartedly that mentioning the rumor and the dismissal helps her reputation or privacy" - May I know why?

"nor do I see it as anything significant. "Odd occurrences on the public image of a pop icon" occur on a regular basis." - of this kind? I don't hear most pop artists being suspected of having unusual genetic conditions.

That doesn't make ever incident critical to understanding the subject from an encyclopedic point of view. - Well, again, why? In my opinion it is a useful information -after all she's a public icon more than anything else, and the perception of her is arguably quite fundamental to describe her. And that perception is also made of the hoaxes and rumours surrounding her public image.

Stating "As a possible side-effect of the bisexual and somewhat androgynous public image of Gaga" is not acceptable per WP:SYNTHESIS : Here I completely agree, my fault.

--Cyclopia (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

By comparison, her comparison to other music artists (Madonna, Gwen Stefani, Christina) has been a catalyst for every critical review of her debut album (the very reason she's famous in the first place). In the interest of sensitivity and good judgment, I once again assert this information should not be included. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Random section break 2

• As for the mainstream sources, I note that what's at MTV.com is in their blog section.[1] ABC's story is a staunch denial from her manager.[2]. I wouldn't call that rising to the level of widespread coverage yet; I agree that it should still not be included in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• As for MTV: right, but it's a blog on MTV. It's kinda like an editorial on a news source, I would say, it's not "just another blog", there's some kind of official endorsement. As for ABC's story, yes, it is a denial for her manager: this means IMHO that the rumour has been widespread enough to require such an official denial, which makes a strong case for this information to be public and worth inclusion. --Cyclopia (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the threshold for inclusion in not the verifiability of the subject. One news official asking a directed question and one official rebuttal is not widespread media coverage, especially in comparison to other aspects of her life and career. Wikipedia is regularly becoming used and/or examined by mainstream media, as exampled by Talk:Michael Jackson and Talk:Rorschach test. Wikipedia has the potential to perpetuate rumors about living people when exhaustively discussed by editors and articles. How does permanently recording a hoax - which was clearly spread as a way to disparage the subject, not compliment her (its not as if these blogs exclaimed how wonderful it is to have the first hemaphrodite grace the world of pop music) - help to maintain her privacy and/or dignity? You've asserted time and time again you believe to find this information useful. Conversely, I find it ludicrous/absurd/laughable/ridiculous that anyone - especially mainstream news - would find this in anyway "useful" information. Its nothing more than tabloid journalism and should not, as WP:HARM states, "be recorded for posterity." The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"Ronald Reagan Hermaphrodite" turns up 10,500 hits, even though so far as I know there has never been any suggestion that Reagan was a hermaphrodite. That is what I think Bookkeeper is trying to tell you about Wiki policy against using Google hits as a point of reference.

Wikipedia is not a place to amplify rumors. Encyclopedias do not feature the excesses of the fringes of celebrity culture vultures. That is what trashy blogs are for. If a person is a hermaphrodite, encyclopedia editors need to leave it to others to make that case, and for notable sources to make that news. If a person is not a hermaphrodite, it is far beneath the weight threshold for a brief encyclopedia bio to herald that some cad started such a rumor. If the manager were to have coyly left the door open on the issue, thinking that this sort of speculation would make for good press, and it made notable press, then there could be a discussion about whether a mention met Wikipedia's weight threshold, and whether the majority of sources focus on it as rumor or as a publicity tactic. But given the denial, and given that this is not a notable aspect of this person's biography, it does not belong in this person's biography.

WP:NOTNEWS points out that we are here to discuss the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage in and of itself does not make something worthy of article inclusion, particularly when that is or is in response to "tabloid journalism", which seems essentially what the publishing, inquiry and answer to this rumor amounts to.

WP:SOAP notes that one thing Wikipedia is not here for is "Scandal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy." If it's your opinion that this is interesting or harmless, that only means others are entitled to write blogs questioning whether you are a hermaphrodite. But your representative's denial of such would presumably not make a 1-page bio of you, either.

A manager dismissing a question does not raise the question to encyclopedic biography. The privacy issue is that it's too easy with the blogosphere to elevate a nasty rumor to the level of national public discourse (a level I daresay this has not reached). It is precisely because of the reasons you use to sketch out the sketchy profile of this rumor that an encyclopedia has to acknowledge the encyclopedic borderline and say that such a thing is not biographically relevant.

As to your point likening an MTV blog post to editorials on news sources, aside from how ridiculous that sounds, Op/Ed pieces generally don't meet the threshold for Wikipedia's political biographies either, and would be particularly objectionable if it were being used to insert the denial of a rumor. Consider that the Barack Obama bio doesn't mention the birther conspiracy, and there's a whole Wikipedia article on that.

This has nothing to do with Lady GaGa or hermaphrodites. There are rumors which are taken as fact for decades, bubbling up into legitimate reportage from time to time; even some of these do not make the threshold unless they can be notably said to have had an impact on the person's career. Rumors about the gender identity, sexuality and sexual proclivities of famous people are as old as civilization. There is a place for that, but that place is not an encyclopedia. Perhaps you've forgotten that it is that, and not a blog, that you're editing here. Abrazame (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"Ronald Reagan Hermaphrodite" turns up 10,500 hits, - Fair. It is nice that, if you look at them, many of them are links reporting the Lady Gaga's rumour!

Wikipedia is not a place to amplify rumors. Encyclopedias do not feature the excesses of the fringes of celebrity culture vultures. That is what trashy blogs are for. - Could not agree more.

If a person is a hermaphrodite, encyclopedia editors need to leave it to others to make that case, and for notable sources to make that news. - Same as above.

If a person is not a hermaphrodite, it is far beneath the weight threshold for a brief encyclopedia bio to herald that some cad started such a rumor. - This instead I don't understand. Why? There is a consistent number of websites that picked up the thing and even an official rebuttal, and it is odd enough to be notable IMHO.

But given that this is not a notable aspect of this person's biography - You are asserting this, but backed by what?

News coverage in and of itself does not make something worthy of article inclusion - Fair point.

Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy." If it's your opinion that this is interesting or harmless, that only means others are entitled to write blogs questioning whether you are a hermaphrodite. - This is again misunderstanding the issue. My opinion that this is interesting or harmless means that, in the case a lot of blogs begin to question whether I am ermaphrodite until the point my manager has to do an official comment, it is absoluely not libelous or infringing my privacy to acknowledge the existence of such blogs and public rebuttal. Please don't put "propagating the rumour" and "talking about the existence of a rumour" in the same bin: they're not even on the same playing field.

As to your point likening an MTV blog post to editorials on news sources, aside from how ridiculous that sounds, - I understand, but it depends on what we're talking about. We cannot reasonably expect Nature to discuss the Time Cube, and for the same reason we cannot expect tons of first-class newspapers to discuss this.

Consider that the Barack Obama bio doesn't mention the birther conspiracy, and there's a whole Wikipedia article on that. - Thanks for pointing me that. It sounds utterly ridicolous that the article doesn't mention a whole other article that talks about that conspiracy theory. If it is an attempt at "privacy", it sounds grotesque: if you care about such privacy, you don't write the article itself (something I would disagree with, by the way), but trying to "hide" it, well, it is childish at best. I'll try to have a look at the issue.

even some of these do not make the threshold unless they can be notably said to have had an impact on the person's career. - This is an interesting point. My point is that it is notable in the fact that it changes the public perception of the person, that in this case is very much the reason for the existence of the article itself. Even if there are no direct consequences of that, it has been widespread enough to become part of the public image. That's why I think it is worth inclusion.

Perhaps you've forgotten that it is that, and not a blog, that you're editing here. - I am on Wikipedia since 2002, and I have an account since 2004, even if I am not a particularly prolific editor. I think I have an idea of what the site is for.

--Cyclopia (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hiding/censorship is not so much the issue as notability. Specifically the weight of the issue, which in this case is minuscule. Regardless of google hits/the managers statement, there is nothing to convince me there is any relevance or noteworthy/academic/scholarly information about this ridiculous rumor worth documenting in Lady Gaga's biography. I don't believe the coverage is in any way widespread enough to have become a part of her public image. There is no evidence she's suffered any change in perception due to the rumor. If it had, I think it would have been much more well known - the fact that you have to go digging for a reliable source indicates its of limited or fleeting coverage as stated in WP:HARM. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to re-state policy: If the information has only appeared in a few tabloid sources, local newspapers, or websites of dubious quality, or has only been the subject of fleeting and temporary coverage, then it is not appropriate to include it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am convinced that "fleeting and temporary coverage" applies indeed. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

These long and technical arguments over stupid points, invoking clause after clause of wikipedia law, are everything that annoys me about wikipedia. I don't think the issue is such a stupid thing to mention, particularly while it's topical, and the way proposed above looked quite a tactful way to go about it. The story is on lots of news sites, even if they're only reporting it as a 'denied rumour'. Many people will come to this site for confirmation on silly rumours, so my opinion is that it might as well be included to set people straight. McPat (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hence part of the overall problem: people should not be using an encyclopedia to confirm silly rumors. An encyclopedia should have more integrity than that. We don't break policies simply to "set people straight". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if, after the discussion, for now we can agree that this rumour thing is a relatively minor episode, I would kindly remember you that you're no one to decide what people use an encyclopedia for and what not. If relevant on the article, we put the information on, what people do of it, it's their choice, not ours. If a rumour is "silly" or not it's not for us to decide: if it exists and it is discussed widely, it has to be reported. It would clarify discussion if you avoid such kind of arguments. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll do no such thing. My wording may be more crass, but it falls in line with every policy I've gone over extensively on this page including BLP, HARM, and VERIFY. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sure :) , sorry if I sounded pedant. Thanks! --Cyclopia (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Fleeting and temporary coverage" is absolutely the watchword here; or in other words: tempest, meet teacup. Maybe eventually it'll merit an amusing footnote, but for now we're not looking at anything notable. -- mordicai. (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is very important to have this section on the Lady Gaga page because it has changed her public view. This is well researched with numerous sources. Please edit, do not delete.

I find it interesting that some people even consider the 'hermoaphrodite' rumours to be harmful in any way. I'm sure Gaga wouldn't see it like that. Why is someone's gender a harmful thing? Tikkuy (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue if Lady Gaga is a hermaphrodite should NOT be included in the article as it is only hearsay and/or Lady Gaga is trying to get attention. SHE is a women. According to the Yahoo article [3], Katy Perry says it was "very calculated. She knows what she's doing. She put something in her knickers, a mini strap-on (sex toy). Bless her if she does have a d**k, but I am certain she doesn't." Wikipedia is about FACTUAL information, we can't prove or disprove it, so it remains out of the article until and if proven to be fact. --Keithf2008 (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

that just sounds like MORE of a reason to include this, as she herself is putting effort in to promoting this rumor to increase her fame. Mathmo ^Talk 02:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding an earlier comment about Ronald Reagan hermaphrodite google hits and comparing this Lady Gaga, it seems a lot of people are very ignorant on how to use google. This is about the number of google NEWS hits, which Ronald Reagan hermaphrodite has NONE while Lady Gaga has lots on this topic. This is a world of difference. Case opened, closed, and shut. Mathmo ^Talk 02:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Identity

Rumors were spread through the internet that suggest that Gaga is a hermaphrodite (having both male and female genitalia). These rumors sprouted from a video of Gaga stepping off of a scooter while on stage at the Glastonbury Festival in the United Kingdom. In the video of incident, Gaga's skirt reveals what appears to be male genitalia. Gaga's manager stated regarding the controversy that the rumor is completely "ridiculous", ABCNews.com reported.

Please see discussion above. Even if my very own personal gut feeling is that we more or less agree that there should be a mention on the article, there are numerous unsolved issues about that. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This should NOT be included in the article as it is only hearsay and/or Lady Gaga is trying to get attention. SHE is a women. According to the Yahoo article [4], Katy Perry says it was "very calculated. She knows what she's doing. She put something in her knickers, a mini strap-on (sex toy). Bless her if she does have a d**k, but I am certain she doesn't." Wikipedia is about FACTUAL information, we can't prove or disprove it, so it remains out of the article until and if proven to be fact. --Keithf2008 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Keithf2008, the discussion is on whether including the fact that the rumour exists: no one is going to say that she is intersex, but to say that there is an hoax around her is a factual information which may (or may not) be worth a little mention. See other discussions on this talk page for clarification. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think it's a notable thing to add to the article. It's very difficult to actually 100% confirm a rumour exists. --Keithf2008 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's kinda trivial actually; there are numerous sources that can be shown to propagate the rumour, an official dismissal by her manager, etc. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The rumor is FAKE. She is NOT a hermaphrodite, her rep has confirmed this. That quote was a complete fabrication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.95.132 (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The content of the rumour is an hoax, most probably. The existence of the rumour is not: you and me are talking about it right now. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know I visited wikipedia to find out if the rumour was true or not, and was surprised to find it was not mentioned at all. Given the speculation its important to let people know that there is a discussion going on about this. Like me they will turn to wikipedia to find out what facts are available, and if there are none, they can at least know the issue is unresolved. Also, if it does turn out to be true it will appear that people have been trying to surpress the rumours which will make Wikiepdia look as if its been got at by her management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.37.108 (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I was interested myself, as this rumour has earned wide-spread reception. I definitely support it to be mentioned in the article. --KnightMove (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. I visited this article for the same reason and I find it strange that it isn't mentioned at all when it has created such a huge buzz. Someone need to put it in the article.193.150.222.23 (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I also feel it should be in the article, it has created a social buzz, and if indeed the rumor is false, it should be debunked in the primary article. Other artists have rumors and conspiracies, and Lady Gaga's case should be no different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.43.57 (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 VMAs invalidates WP:HARM

In the 2009 VMAs, the speaker, I don't know his name, some dark skinned british guy with an unshaven beard, talked explicitely about the ongoing rumors. So basically that should qualify for inclusion. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sure, well if some dark-skinned British guy with a beard whom you can't name talks explicitly about rumors about someone he doesn't even know, it goes right in her encyclopedia biography. Come on, people. This is more about you than it is about her. Abrazame (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure somebody knows. I'm not all up on the teen culture. The point however was, he was doing a bunch of hosting of the show and on national TV, he was talking about the whole thing, which kinda invalidates WP:HARM as the issue is out there. I'm not talking notability, but just that it's gotten so much public awareness, it's not some big ol secret. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This guy, Russell Brand, discussed in detail the rumors about Lady Gaga in the VMA 2009 on national TV and all that and everybody saw it. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga was not born in Yonkers.

Yonkers is not her place of Birth. Canberra Australia radio Station 104.7 interviewed her and stated her place of birth as Yonkers and she said she was not born in Yonkers. The station mentioned they got the information from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.63.14 (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there an aircheck of the interview available to verify? The problem is that Billboard says she was born in Yonkers, so unless we can verify otherwise, the article will likely stay with the print source. —C.Fred (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

She says in this interview that she was offended when people said she was born in Yonkers. Now we just need a reliable source. Tikkuy (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Info about her birthplace has been removed per the above video. However, Manhattan can't be added with that as a source for copyright reasons. D.C. Blake (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed back, see this edit summary for an explanation. When info comes out that says that Lady Gaga was born somewhere other than Yonkers, we can add it. But what I think she's saying is that she was raised in Manhattan, which would explain why she prefers being recognized as from there. D.C. Blake (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Her official site would beg to differ.

While we're at it the article says she was admitted to NYU at the age of 27, despite the fact that she's 23. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.85.234 (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you guys watch her SNL performance? She performed an unknown song acousticly (not Bad Romance) about her life as child stating she was born in 86 in Lenox Hill. According to the article "Lenox Hill", it is a neighborhood on Manhattan's Upper East Side. This may be the answer to the mystery regarding her place of birth but unfortunately there are no sources as of yet to verify it. • вяαdcяochat 07:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There's clearly some doubt about where she was born. I'm removing Yonkers. If it becomes defintely clear where she was born, then but that place in there. Dmn € Դմն 23:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Source and citations

"Having learned piano at the age of four, Gaga went on to write her first piano ballad at thirteen". Who or whom clains this? Which ballad did she write, and where are the sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.176.180 (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Her biography claims this, and it is clearly listed as a source. It does not give the name of the ballad; it's probably a non-notable song that we've never heard anyway. D.C. Blake (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The above question posed by unsigned is a good one, and one that DC Blake doesn't fully address. The claim that Gaga "learned piano at the age of four" certainly needs to be rephrased. Gaga perhaps began learning piano at age four, but I seriously doubt she fully learned piano as a toddler in the span of one year. Even Mozart didn't make this claim. "Having started to learn to play piano at the age of four" might be a better, more accurate way to phrase this claim. 76.121.53.111 (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I altered the text from "Having learned piano at age 4" to "Playing piano by ear from the age of 4". Even in the unlikely event that she had the intellectual capacity and the motor skills of a mature pianist, a four-year-old girl doesn't have the finger span required to play anything resembling a legitimate piece of music. What is likely is that she exhibited an early interest in toying at the piano and at that age could pick out bits of melodies by ear, playing them with one or both hands, and persisted in her interest and improved in her abilities from there. One "learns" there is no Santa Claus. (Hopefully not at 4.) One exhibits early interest and nascent ability in a musical instrument and develops that over the course of years. Abrazame (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

relationship with gay community- VMAs

At the 2009 VMAs, Lady Gaga said "this is for God and the gays" when receiving her moonman award, NOT "this is for the gays."65.10.116.36 (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a source please? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been 24 hours just yet... but I found these: Abbey09 (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

she dedicated her Best New Artist award to her fans, God and "the gays" via contactmusic.com (2009 MTV Video Music Awards, USA)

You guys make it so hard to love anywhere else... to God and the gays! via accesshollywood.com (2009 MuchMusic Video Music Awards, Canada)

Yeah, ok, so there was two extra words in there... It makes it even funnier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miarebarose (talk • contribs) 21:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The term 'gay community' wasn't used by the artist, and is a very contentious, disputed, and 'POV' term in any case. Get rid of it, I say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.183.158 (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I condensed the subsection and combined it into the "Image" section it was a part of. This maintains the cited information that could be seen as important without the overkill of devoting an entire portion to the issue, which is overall minor in relation to her career as a musician.--Josh (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Voice Type

While she has a talented voice, it is questionable what her voice type is? I'd say mezzo-soprano? Stuff like this needs to be on each singer mentioned on wikipedia and I notice it isn't. (Bruce Springsteen, David Cook, Tom Petty, etc.)

But talking about Lady Gaga, I'd say her singing voice is a true mezzo-soprano as it isn't thick like an alto's but it isn't light like a soprano (think Amy Winehouse as contralto and Diana Ross as soprano) so I request that Gaga's wikipedia page be UNLOCKED and that her voice type be put on her additional info. bar. Whether she may be an alto or mezzo, it needs to be on here because there's people out there that studies this stuff. Thanks!

-Beachboy14- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachboy14 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, no scholars, experts, etc. have studied her voice and said what her voice type is. Until we can verify it, we can't include it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a source that her voice is mezzo-soprano, its the second source on the page.

It's arguable that that source should be removed altogether, since I'm not sure it's reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That source is user-generated trivia, which means the detail could have been added by the same Wikipedian who was speculating erroneously on the vocal ranges of several artists a couple of weeks ago. I'm removing that ref as the brief sentence it referenced has two other sources. Abrazame (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think she's an contralto singer. But that's just my opinion, lol. Tribal44 (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Tribal44

Religion

Everytime I add the category Category:American Roman Catholics to the article someone removes it. Lady GaGa is a Roman Catholic, and attended a Catholic school. She has not left the faith, therefore she is still Catholic. 74.167.245.190 (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's because there is no source nor anything in the article saying that she is Roman Catholic. Going to Catholic school is not evidence that the person is Catholic: people can be of no/another faith and still go to a religious school. Please source the information about her being Catholic. Thanks. Acalamari 02:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at one of the above sections, doesn't it say something about her dedicating her winning of an award to "God, and the gays"? I think she is at least some kind of Christian or Catholic if she would mention God in a speech. I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It may surprise you, but not only Christians believe in God. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well going to catholic school and saying God in public is pretty vague evidence, but personally it prolly means she is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.125.86 (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, please can I change the bubble picture?

The bubble picture is poor quality, and I have improved it using Google Picasa. May I please replace it? It is exactly the same the same image, just clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.45.59 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free. You will have to do it at Commons here, and you will probably have to create an account as well. Make sure you click that it's a "derivative work of a file from Commons". Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 20:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Writing Credits

The article repeatedly states that she has written songs for numerous artists that have gone on to become huge hits. Is it possible to state which songs she has written for other artists? Other famous songwriters have sections detailing just that, and I think it would be helpful and it seems to be important enough 71.233.68.232 (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Age when accepted to NY School of Arts

How can someone who was born in 1986 have gotten accepted to an Arts School at the age of 27?

From the article as it currently stands: "At age 27, she gained early admission to the New York University's Tisch School of the Arts." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebensmuede (talk • contribs) 10:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Rechecked her bio: "At age 17, she became was one of 20 kids in the world to get early admission to Tisch School of the Arts at NYU."^{[emphasis added]} Article corrected accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)}}